Israel’s ‘right to exist’ and the Palestinian right to resist

Israel’s demand that Palestinians recognize it as a ‘Jewish State’ is a demand for legitimizing Apartheid and ethnic cleansing, and Palestinians certainly have a right to resist it. So does everyone else. No state has a ‘right to exist’ that renders invalid its actions and policies, just as the right to resist occupation does contain limitations on violence against civilians.

In one of their numerous breathtaking summations, Richard Falk and Virginia Tilley wrote in their recent UN report that the UN retracted:

“Finally, identifying apartheid as a regime clarifies one controversy: That ending such a regime would constitute destruction of the state itself. This interpretation is understandable if the State is understood as being the same as the regime. Thus, some suggest that the aim of eliminating Apartheid in Israel is tantamount to aiming to “destroy Israel”. However, a state does not cease to exist as a result of regime change. The elimination of the Apartheid regime in South Africa in no way affected the country’s statehood”.

(UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia commissioned report, Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid, P. 18.)

The claim that denying Israel’s “right to exist” is tantamount to seeking the complete annihilation of its (mostly Jewish) people has long sat at the core of Israeli apologia.

As Joseph Levine, professor of Philosophy at the University of Massachusetts, noted in his New York Times opinion piece titled ‘On Questioning the Jewish State’ (2013),

[T]he phrase “right to exist” sounds awfully close to “right to life,” so denying Israel its right to exist sounds awfully close to permitting the extermination of its people…

but he adds a crucial notion to his analysis:

The key to the interpretation is found in the crucial four words that are often tacked on to the phrase “Israel’s right to exist” — namely, “… as a Jewish state.”

This is indeed the core notion which sits behind this “right to exist”. The question is not about whether the State of Israel has a “right to exist” as such, as a sterile question void of any mention of ‘Jewish State’. As Ben White noted in his article on this subject (2015),

[N]o states have a “right to exist”, without exceptions. States come and go, are formed, and broken up. South Sudan was created in 2011. The USSR ceased to exist in 1991. Czechoslovakia became Slovakia and the Czech Republic in 1993.

The question is thus not really whether Israel has a “right to exist” as an absolute a-priori timeless question. Such a right doesn’t really exist in advance – states exist simply because they do, and they get recognized (or not) for their existence as an a-posteriori matter. Hence the question is, and must be: existas what?

Here the demand to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State is central to Israel’s demand for legitimacy as an Apartheid state. The demand for Palestinians to recognize Israel not merely for its existence (which they did by treaty already in 1993 Oslo accords), but also for its existence as a Jewish State, has been a central addition imposed by Netanyahu in his premiership from 2009 and on.

As Sari Nusseibeh, professor of Philosophy at Al Quds University in East Jerusalem, writes in his article ‘Why Israel can’t be a Jewish State’ (2011),

[R]ecognition of Israel as a “Jewish state” implies that Israel is, or should be, either a theocracy (if we take the word “Jewish” to apply to the religion of Judaism) or an apartheid state (if we take the word “Jewish” to apply to the ethnicity of Jews), or both, and in all of these cases, Israel is then no longer a democracy – something which has rightly been the pride of most Israelis since the country’s founding in 1948.

This is one of his many points in the article noting the problems of such a definition.

Nusseibeh’s argument is only made more stark when he establishes the distinction between racial and religious definitions of Judaism:

First, let us say that confusion immediately arises here because the term “Jewish” can be applied both to the ancient race of Israelites and their descendants, as well as to those who believe in and practice the religion of Judaism. These generally overlap, but not always. For example, some ethnic Jews are atheists and there are converts to Judaism (leaving aside the question of whether these are accepted as such by Ultra-Orthodox Jews) who are not ethnic Jews.

In effect, both notions do not hold fully, but the ‘Jewish’ notion of ‘Jewish state’ does, in the sense of an ethnic nation-state with a religious-mythical Jewish-nationalist notion. Hence, one could argue that Israel is a Jewish ethno-theocracy. The ‘religious’ notion is anyway applied as an ‘ethnic’ aspect for all practical purposes of the state, translating it to ‘nation’ (there is no Israeli nationality). Thus I would say that whichever way we turn it, Israel is an Apartheid state, by direct merit of its definition and application of ‘Jewish State’. Needless to say, such a state is not democratic.

Israel does not want to be ‘Jewish State’ just as ‘France is French’ (an analogy which both Nusseibeh and Levine apply and refute). Because, as Levine notes,

[W]hereas there is both an ethnic and a civic sense to be made of the term “French people,” the term “Jewish people” has only an ethnic sense.

Israel would have to be an “Israeli state” if it would want to apply for the analogy. But as mentioned, there is no Israeli nationality, so such an application is invalid. We can even attempt to be more generous, and suggest that Israel could be “Jewish” just as UK is “Christian”. Well, it could – but then a whole lot of things would need to happen. It would need to recognize an Israeli nationality, and it would need to reduce state religion to a mere anecdote which does not supersede, infringe upon or discriminate with respect to civil rights.

I am not even going as far as requiring Israel to follow the Norwegian model of complete separation of state and church, which Norway did in 2012. I am merely pointing out that Israel cannot be compared to the ‘western democracies’ that it seeks to compare itself with. Israel has singled itself out in so many ways, and continues to do so.

But the Palestinians – they are being asked to not only recognize Israel, which they already have. They are being demanded by Israel to recognize it as a Jewish State, with all that it entails – which includes their dispossession and Apartheid as intrinsic features.

[I]t might be recalled that although Mahatma Gandhi recognized the division of India as an “accomplished fact” that he was “forced to accept,” he adamantly refused to believe in a distinct Muslim nationalism and India’s “artificial partition” (p. 47).

It is precisely such ‘Jewish nationalism’ that Palestinians are being asked to recognize and effectively endorse.

Palestinians certainly have a right to resist such a demand. But this right is not recognized by Israel. Their refusal to recognize a Jewish State is conveniently read as intransigence – a convenient trick from the Israeli box of magic to turn public opinion against them. What can Palestinians do to resist their occupation? They can resort to armed resistance – but then they are considered “terrorists” by Israel, even if they attack purely military targets, and must suffer draconian backlash and collective punishment. They can resort to unarmed yet physical protest, as in peaceful marches – but Israel has military laws in order to quash these by violent means, and they are regularly applied. Then the Palestinians can protest in means which are so peaceful they don’t even require a march – boycotts, which are considered protected speech also in USA by virtue of the 1st Amendment and Supreme Court rulings. But to no avail – Israel considers it ‘diplomatic terrorism’ and fights it like it was a military confrontation.

So Israel wants no conditions placed on its “Jewish State”, whilst it wants all conditions placed on Palestinians (not to mention the Palestinian State which has always really been fiction for Zionists). By Israel’s standards, a Jewish State should be allowed its Apartheid, with no limitations, while resistance to it can have no real outlet.

So like the Palestinian occupied territories geographically, everything is walled in for Palestinians in terms of resistance, as far as Israel is concerned. No options are left; and it is not enough to recognize the occupier. It is necessary to bow to it, and to recognize its ethnic-religious superiority, the same superiority by which it kills, maims and dispossesses you. To kiss the ground and declare the Jews your masters, with their ‘Jewish State’.

How much anti-Semitism will this end up generating? How long will Israel be able to hold its claim that anyone who resists Israeli Apartheid in the name of Jewish State is an anti-Semite?

Once, the notion of Apartheid as pertaining to Israel was a taboo notion. It has become far more discussed today. The notion of Genocide, nonetheless, is still more contentious. But former Israeli Minister MK Shulamit Aloni all but spelled out Israeli genocide in 2003, in her article ‘Murder Under the Cover of Righteousness’. Here she concludes:

“So it’s not yet genocide of the terrible and unique style of which we were past victims. And as one of the smart Generals told me, we do not have crematoria and gas chambers. Is anything less than that consistent with Jewish ethics? Did he ever hear how an entire people said that it did not know what was done in its name?”

“Jewish State” is doing what it does in the name of Jews. You cannot get around that one, it’s in the name, in the definition. It’s doing what it does to all Palestinians in Jews’ names. That is, a global population of roughly 25 million people (Jews and Palestinians) are complicit or affected. Then there is every other person of conscience. It is upon us to resist this.

As Falk and Tilley noted in the UN report, ending the Apartheid regime would NOT constitute destruction of the state itself. Israel could potentially be as Jewish as UK is Christian (although I would much prefer it to separate religion and state like Norway). But there are no compromises with Israel on these terms; and that means Apartheid.

No state has a “right” to commit crimes against humanity. Genocide and Apartheid are the two of the gravest of them. And if a regime’s existence is based upon the continuance of these crimes? Then the regime has no right to exist.

About Jonathan Ofir

Posted In:

62 Responses

Israel bit off more than it could chew in 1967 and has resorted to ever increasing levels of nonsense to deal with the consequences.
Zionism never figured out how to deal with the locals. Violence doesn’t see to have worked.

Israel may be nominally Jewish but in reality is run along the principles of trauma.

Actually, Israel “bit” off far less then it could have chewed on back in ’67 and even more so in ’73. I see where you like to start twisting your narratives very early in your stories so by the time who fkkn knows who’ll be reading it you been certain to start with a ridiculous supposition in the first part. clever. But then you must know what Sartre said about clever folks?

Before Israelis demand Palestinians call Israel ‘The Jewish state of Israel’ or ‘Israel the Jewish state’, they should change their official name at the United Nations. Then Palestinian leaders ‘may’ be required to acknowledge that name when signing treaties etc. Rather like the official name of the ‘Islamic Republic of Pakistan’. Can’t see the Israelis having the chutzpah to do that, in which case they cannot demand it from others.

Oh yeah. That is a real possibility. I can see this happening………. When Falk gets his way and the UN transfers all of its governmental business and campus to Turkey ,After the US kicks its, sorry corrupt ass of the island

As an outsider to the conflict in the area of Palestine/Israel (being a non-religious Christian with no Jewish or Palestinian inheritance), I am not sure if the Jews/Israelis them selves agree on what is the definiton of “a Jew”..

When I was living in Israel I met many religious Orthodox Jews, who said they were against the occupation and the State of Israel since the state was a “man-made project” and not a consequence of a prophetial sight/vision as it was promised in the “Holy Book”. (I am sorry, my english is not enough to explain this, I hope people understand what I mean..) They did not serve in the Israelian army either.

Then again I attended a language course in Hebrew in Tel Aviv, where I met many Russian immigrants, mostly girls, who had just moved in to the country. They were not religious and they maybe had a grandmother who had been Jewish, but to me they were not any more Jewish than I was (me being not Jewish at all).. Still they were becoming citizens of the state and of course supported the idea of the State of Israel.

Then there were the religiously converted Jews, who I quess should be accepted being as “equal” to the other Jewish people in Israel. And otherwise they were I quess, but then again there were families (not very religious Jews) who did not accept a convert to marry their sons or daughters, since they were not of Jewish blood..

So if a religious Jew resists the occupation, a non-religious (some-Jewish-inheritance-in-somewhere-in-the-ancestory) supports it, a converted Jew can be a citizen of a Jewish state, but still not enough Jewish to marry a “real Jew”.. The whole definiton of a Jew just starts to sound too chaotic to me..

It sounds like almost anyone can be a Jew, as long as they populate the State of Israel “in a right way”. But if it is about “bloodline”, religion, culture.. I have no idea, if anyone knows who is a “real Jew”.. ??

As for an outsider, it looked like the nationalists were not so religious and the really religious were against the nationalism and then there were just a chaos of other “what-ever-kind-of” Jews in the between..

Well, I’d say it means I was born in a Christian family and I appreciate certain Christian values, but would NEVER read the Bible as a “true history of a humankind” and for me, if there is a God, I believe it is the same God for us all no matter what you call your religion..

So I am sure you can find several Christians who would tell you, I am not a Christian and will “go to Hell”.. But I am not worried since I do not believe in Heaven either.. :)

(And the reason why I mentioned it there above was, that some religious Christians have a special relationship with Israel and believe that Israel belongs to the Jews, since “they were the Gods chosen people”.. And this is the group of people I do not want to mixed with..)

Well, I’d say it means I was born in a Christian family and I appreciate certain Christian values…

Yeah, I figured it was that kinda thing. “Culturally Christian,” or something approximately like that. A small part of me understands that kind of thought, but a larger part of me thinks it’s kinda… Well, let’s just say it doesn’t make sense to me personally. And it may be mainly a language thing.

…if there is a God…; I do not believe in Heaven…

I’m not a religious person. For me, it seems that if you don’t believe in God and/or heaven, how in the world can you call yourself a Christian? The words just don’t match. And this isn’t anything personal. It’s about words and using language directly. To do one’s best to be understood, to understand yourself, and try to use words so that others can understand you.

There’s a guy who is a hero as far as I’m concerned, and is extremely intelligent, well-read, yada yada, who says the same thing about himself (if I remember correctly, he has referred to himself as “Culturally Muslim”). And I’ve got mad respect for him. I just don’t respect the idea/terminology.

I think it is a language thing.. In here many of us call ourselves “manner-Christians”.. (Maybe the culturally Christian could mean the same..) We celebrate Christmas, Easter and other Christian holidays, respect some Christian values, but going to the Church or showing some kind of “open religiousness” it is not our thing..

I’d say in the Nordic Countries, where we are mostly Lutherans, it is quite typical.. (Long story made short: Luther “undressed” Christianity of all the gold, decorations and huge celebrations, which propably has affected us this way in a long run..)

Anyway I did not think of myself that Christian before I lived in a Jewish community in Israel. There was no problem to fit in, but I could surely see certain differences in our thinking coming from our different “religious inheritance”, and only after that I have defined myself as “somekind” of Christian.

And when I said “if there is a God”, I meant, I am not an atheist.. I just don’t want to belive in a God who would separate people “to the right ones and the wrong ones” as the fanatics in each religion seems to do. And I do not want to be connected to those people..

The privileges of the Church of England as a state church are not very important but they do exist. It is the only religion whose dignitaries (archbishops and most bishops) have a de officio right to seats in the upper house of parliament. It alone conducts state ceremonies like the coronation of a new monarch. In practice most of its privileges are symbolic and no longer cause much resentment among non-Anglicans, partly because they are not of great practical significance and partly (I think) simply because people are used to them. A future Israel is conceivable (though admittedly improbable) in which the Judaic rabbinate would have symbolic privileges comparable to those of the Church of England as one aspect of the “minimal Zionism” envisioned by certain Israeli theorists — a state that could still consider itself “Jewish” in this limited symbolic sense without being either theocratic or ethno-supremacist.

Typical zionist greed. While the rest of the world is focused on horrible chemicals attacks, and Trump showing what big tomahawk missiles he can lob into Syria, the dirty thieves are salivating at the prospect of building more illegal settlements on stolen lands. But wait, the official did praise the US for attacking Syria.

‘We need another 100,000 settlers in the Golan’
Likud MK praises US strike on Syria, says Israel needs to strengthen presence in Golan.

All well defined but a wasted effort at cut and paste. Israelis know this and in the normal course of life and moral choices know this. It is really pretty simple. Simple enough for someone even as dense as catalan or dabakr to figure out. Hophmi…. not so much. I don’t doubt his iq but he is buried in victimhood.

It is an issue of priority. Catalan is good because he is doing ok. He cares not a whit but for himself. Doughbaker cares for nothing but the tribe and will embrace pure evil for the tribe. He sees himself as a warrior in embracing evil for the tribe. Again hophmi
.. he is just lost to any normal human emotions. Sad but a waste of space. The carbon savings are the best he will ever be able to offer i won’t say the sooner the better as no one will notice quite frankly.

“The Right To Exist” is gobbledygook hasbara. Meaningless gibberish coined and regurgitated ad nauseam by propagandists (Kissinger?) to keep the Zionist project of stealing Palestine rolling along; while it trashes ACTUAL rights of REAL people every second of every day.

There is no obligation legal, moral or ethical for any state to recognize another in order for there to be freedom from occupation and/or recognized as an independent state. Numerous UN Member states do not recognize each other. They never the less exist and are respected as independent states.

What is required, is for all states to have “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;” Israel has failed in this regard

The Israeli demand for non-Israeli territory for its own protection has no legal. moral or ethical basis. It’s an incredibly stupid notion that leads to war. It’s like a thief saying “I’m justified in taking your car so you can’t chase me for having taken your car”

The Israeli demand that Palestine be disarmed also has no legal, moral or ethical basis. All states have equal rights including the right to self protection either independently or in cooperation with their allies

The Israeli demand that there be a peace treaty before any consideration be given to RoR is the most bizarre.

A refugee returning to Israel, would be an Israeli citizen! No longer a citizen of the other country to the treaty. Think about it …

Israeli demands of the Palestinians are like all wholly holey Hasbara, Red Heifer sh*t! Simply nonsense

The argument regarding Israel’s right to exist is indeed a very common one. In addition to everything mentioned above, people leave out the fact that Israel’s creation and existence are not in a vacuum.

To support this existence millions are homeless refugees, millions others live under a brutal military regime and the rest live as second class citizens in a land they inhabited before Israel existed.

This is always left out and omitted from discussion. They don’t begin the story from the start. but start midway and consider that the starting point. This reminds me of a Mourid Barghouthi quote, regarding the power to tell the definitive story:

“It is easy to blur the truth with a simple linguistic trick: start your story from “Secondly.” Yes, this is what Rabin did. He simply neglected to speak of what happened first. Start your story with “Secondly,” and the world will be turned upside-down. Start your story with “Secondly,” and the arrows of the Red Indians are the original criminals and the guns of the white men are entirely the victims. It is enough to start with “Secondly,” for the anger of the black man against the white to be barbarous. Start with “Secondly,” and Gandhi becomes responsible for the tragedies of the British.”

It’s amazing how this word game has entrapped the world from doing the right thing wrt israel. At the very least, the u.n. needs to kick israel out of the u.n.; they continually break the rules and flaunt their disdain for the u.n. and even threaten to leave. Beat ’em to the punch, u.n. and revoke their membership.

All the arguments that premise everything on acknowledging ‘Israel’s right to exist’ get tiresome — why isn’t this balanced with statements about Palestine’s at-least-equal right to exist? Or at least legitimate questions about Israel’s right to exist beyond the original borders set before 1948?

No country has “the right to exist”, ever. Countries, provinces/states are political formations to serve the needs of ethnic populations, sometimes through conquer. But I’m the 20th and 21st century we as evolved humans decided this was a barbaric practice when done by war.

We have peacibly reformed Germany, peacibly fisdolved the USSR. Other nations have voted to (not necessarily successfully) to separate or join as well.

That said, war and terrorism are how we are watching the region of Palestinian mandate be turned into state(s). It’s been ugly, demoralizing and dehumanizing. There is nothing moral nor ethical about 6 million refugees, and an apartheid government that is made for a migrant nation on top of an ethnic cleansing project. From the beginning even during the Mandate period Jewish anti-zionists in the Holy Land said a political ethno-religious state was a bad idea. They weren’t wrong. You cannot be moral nor ethical (and neither can your military) if you terrorize inhabitants of the land to cleanse it. This goes also for the Palestinian side because there have always been three religious inhabitants since the rise of Islam on that soil.

Israel is neither a state nor a country as it has yet to officially declare its borders and have them accepted as such by the international community. (The entity referred to as “Israel” is also belligerently/illegally/brutally occupying Palestinian and other Arab lands.)

Nor is Israel a “Jewish state.” Over 25% of its citizens are non-Jewish and also the fastest growing segment of the population. Meanwhile, Jewish immigration to Israel is dropping and emigration is rising dramatically.

Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”

Samples of the recognition of Israel:

USA 15 May 1948 “… as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947…”Russia 17 May 1948
Letter from Mr. Molotov stated: “Confirming receipt of your telegram of May 16, in which you inform the Government of the USSR of the proclamation, on the basis of the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of November 29, 1947, of the creation in Palestine of the independent State of Israel and make re-quest for the recognition of the State of Israel and its provisional government by the USSR. I inform yon in this letter that the Govern-ment of the USSR has decided to recognize officially the Stale of Israel and its Provisional Government.”British 27 April 1950“His Majesty’s Government have also decided to accord de jure recognition to the State of Israel, subject to explanations on two points corresponding to those described above in regard to the case of Jordan. These points are as follows. First, that His Majesty’s Government are unable to recognise the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies, though, pending a final determination of the status of the area, they recognise that Israel exercises de facto authority in it. Secondly, that His Majesty’s Government cannot regard the present boundaries between Israel, and Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon as constituting the definitive frontiers of Israel, as these boundaries were laid down in the Armistice Agreements concluded severally between Israel and each of these States, and are subject to any modifications which may be agreed upon under the terms of those Agreements, or of any final settlements which may replace them.” (Thus far nothing has replaced them)Australia 28 January 1949“… on the basis of the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of November 29, 1947…”

Confirmed that it was fighting in and occupying territory “outside the state of Israel” on May 22nd 1948 May 22nd 1948 Israeli Government statement

On May 22, 1948 UNSC S/766 the Provisional Government of Israel answered questions addressed to the “Jewish authorities in Palestine” was transmitted by the acting representative of Israel at the United Nations.

Question (a): Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947?

“In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard. The Southern Negev is uninhabited desert over which no effective authority has ever existed.” … ” the Government of the State of Israel operates in parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel”

Imo, Palestinians have absolutely zero right to demand the Jews give up sovereignty in their land. They can protest, cry, whine or sue but there is really no legitimate way that Jewish sovereignty will be given up without a catastrophic battle which seems more and more likely add the Palestinians and their bds cohorts pursue maximalist demands with preconditions to even negotiate. The icc has about as much backbone or less then the unhrc or even the unsc.

There is a deal to be made. It’s been presented before. It’s not likely to change very much and it seems that neither are the leadership of the Palestinians. It seems obvious that this can lead to only one or two possibilities, neither of which is either peaceful or productive. But sometimes certain issues can not be worked out. Kashmir, Tibet, Falklands, Gibraltar, etc.

One person’s idea of greed is another person’s idea of survival. Nobody can say with any Certainty wether the growing liberation of Jews in the US has any connection to the state of Israel or not. (Of course, as a Zionist,i would say absolutely,) The worlds true outlaw gangster regimes are hardly worried about the US any more but they sure as shit are worried about fckn zionists in Israel. Why change such a great dynamic?

|| DaBakr: … Palestinians have absolutely zero right to demand the Jews give up sovereignty in their land. … ||

No part of geographic Palestine belongs to “the Jews”, who have absolutely zero right to a religion-supremacist state in it. Palestinians have every right to demand justice, accountability and equality within Partition-borders Israel and not-Israel.

DaBakr: “Palestinians have absolutely zero right to demand the Jews give up sovereignty in their land.”

LOL. Try to say the same without using the word “Palestinan” and Jew”. For example: Natives don’t have the right to demand settlers to give up the sovereignity of the country the settlers took by war and expulsion.

“They can protest, cry, whine or sue but there is really no legitimate way that Jewish sovereignty will be given up without a catastrophic battle which seems more and more likely add the Palestinians and their bds cohorts pursue maximalist demands with preconditions to even negotiate”

shorter version, the Palestinians will experience a holocaust which will end once and for all the protest, crying, whining and lawsuits.

“Imo, Palestinians have absolutely zero right to demand the Jews give up sovereignty in their land.”

Your opinion is worthless DaBakr. Jews don’t have sovereignty over any land. States have sovereignty over territory as dictated by their borders.

” there is really no legitimate way that Jewish sovereignty will be given up without a catastrophic battle which seems more and more likely add the Palestinians and their bds cohorts pursue maximalist demands with preconditions to even negotiate”

Israel could adhere to the law instead of using brutal military force. Never been tried in respect to Palestine.

The Palestinians are not obliged to forgo ANY of their legal rights at any time to anyone. Israel’s demands meanwhile, have absolutely no legal basis and Israel like all states, is obliged to adhere to the law, negotiations or not.

” The icc has about as much backbone or less then the unhrc or even the unsc.”

More ZioPoop. UNSC veto vote by the US tells us who hasn’t got any backbone to stand up to the Zionist Federation

“One person’s idea of greed is another person’s idea of survival.”

Mmm. Interesting. Jewish forces were already outside of Israel’s borders even as they were being proclaimed AFTER having acquired more than half of Palestine completely gratis. So who is greedy? The people whose territories were given away or the people who wanted more than they were already given?

” Nobody can say with any Certainty wether the growing liberation of Jews in the US has any connection to the state of Israel or not”

What ‘liberation of Jews in the US? Were they under occupation? Incarcerated? Why do you post so much drivel?

1) Please ease of on the FCKN`s – seriously naff.
2) Please illuminate:
“Imo, Palestinians have absolutely zero right to demand the Jews give up sovereignty in their land”

Are you saying that those Palestinians natives of what has become Israel ( the ones who weren`t ethnically cleansed ) do not have sovereignty in what has become Israel ? That the “their land” applies only to Jewish Israelis ? That the “sovereignty” only applies to Jews wherever they originated from be it Brooklyn , Finchley or downtown Moscow? That the Israeli Palestinian citizens are not “sovereign” citizens but separate or apart ie as in Apartheid.

You can`t have it both ways. Unless you are fully immersed in the “Chosen People” narrative in which case you are entitled to have it any naffing way you want it.

The legitimacy of the right to exist aside….Messrs Netanyahu and Lieberman have stated many times recently that they want a regional approach to peace. The Arab League many years ago tabled the Arab Peace Initiative which has been adopted by ALL Arab States in the region. Within that Initiative is and agreed right for Israel to exist in peace with a guarantee attached. There are many other things in the agreement that gives Israel all it ever asked for peace wise. Yet Netanyahu and Lieberman still have not uplifted and signed the agreement. Therefore one can deduce from that that Israel does not want peace no matter how accommodating to Israel it is.

In fact the Palestinians ask for LESS than their legal rights for peace with Israel. Offering to cede some 78% of the rightful territories of Palestine to Israel in return for peace. This has been acknowledged in the majority of the world’s nations having recognized Palestine as a state.

Israel’s reply has been to continue refuse to allow Palestinian independence by ending the occupation, continuing instead with its illegal behaviour, as it has done since 00:01 May 15th 1948, in territories that are not yet Israeli by any agreement with Palestine.

You mean the so called “article 13” of the so called “universal declaration of human rights” which the so called “Jewish deomcracy” violates as part of its so called “Crime of Apartheid” as defined by so called “international law”?

“In fact the Palestinians ask for LESS than their legal rights for peace with Israel. – ” talknic
That’s not a very smart strategy, it would make sense for your opening offer to be more than what you can settle with, rather than less. Also, they are not getting either their legal rights or peace so I don’t get the point of asking for less. Finally, who are they asking? Israel does not care to give anything.

// “In fact the Palestinians ask for LESS than their legal rights for peace with Israel. – ” //

“That’s not a very smart strategy”

It shows who is actually generous, a trait that’s lacking in the so called Jewish state. It also shows compassion for Jewish folk innocently or naively caught up in the vile Zionist scheme. The Palestinians it seems value the basic tenets of Judaism far more than you or Israel currently show

” it would make sense for your opening offer to be more than what you can settle with, rather than less”

The offer was open for some two thousand years, where Jewish folk could have gone to Palestine, attained citizenship, bought land and settled anywhere in the Jewish People’s alleged Historical Homeland. Few bothered. Not even Herzl or his family bothered. The Zionist Federation wanted it all, sans non-Jews and set about to achieve it by lying to and ripping off poor Jews

Under Article 7 of the LoN Mandate for Palestine Jewish folk were offered Palestinian citizenship, equal rights. Not enough for the Zionist Federation.

Under UNGA res 181 another offer. Still not enough for the Zionistas

“Also, they are not getting either their legal rights or peace so I don’t get the point of asking for less”

Turning the other cheek shows folk who the aggressor really is.

“Finally, who are they asking? Israel does not care to give anything.”

“It shows who is actually generous… It also shows compassion for Jewish folk…Turning the other cheek…” Talknic
So according to talknic (who seems to represent the dominant view here), the Palestinians are generous and compassionate and turn the other cheek. This sounds very odd to me as it has resulted in Israel having a great economy, free healthcare, people who travel all over the world, a great standard of living, and on the other hand an awful economy, terrible conditions, and incredible suffering for the Palestinians. And in spite of that the Palestinians continue to be “generous”? Well, who can ask for anything for anything more? I hope they continue to be generous and turn the other cheek, this is fantastic, may it last many more centuries.
Also, if they are so generous, perhaps they can agree to give up the Jordan valley and the four major settlements. What is so special about the Green Line? You have said that the Palestinians are entitled to everything beyond 1947, so why not give up a little more, you know, in the name of generosity and turning the other cheek?

“So according to talknic (who seems to represent the dominant view here), the Palestinians are generous and compassionate and turn the other cheek.”

They have in front of the world at the UN, actually offered peace and some 78% of their territory and it has been acknowledged thru recognition by the majority of the world’s nations.

Israel has offered NO THING. Instead it has made demands that actually have no moral, ethical or legal basis.

“This sounds very odd to me as it has resulted in Israel having a great economy, free healthcare, people who travel all over the world, a great standard of living, and on the other hand an awful economy, terrible conditions, and incredible suffering for the Palestinians”

The problem with your utopia is that Israel hasn’t paid it’s dues for illegally acquiring territories over the last 69 yrs, illegal dispossession of non-Jewish Israelis, illegal dispossession of Palestinians from non-Israeli territories, illegally exploiting non-Israeli resources in non-Israeli territories, illegally gathering taxes and rates from folk to whom it has illegally sold non-Israeli real estate in non-Israeli territories. The list is long and un-paid. Do not unto others …

“And in spite of that the Palestinians continue to be “generous”? Well, who can ask for anything for anything more? “

Israel does!

“I hope they continue to be generous and turn the other cheek, this is fantastic, may it last many more centuries.”

Such glee. So revealing

“Also, if they are so generous, perhaps they can agree to give up the Jordan valley and the four major settlements. What is so special about the Green Line? You have said that the Palestinians are entitled to everything beyond 1947, so why not give up a little more, you know, in the name of generosity and turning the other cheek? “

LOL Shout it from the rooftops dude, let readers know. Only a really vile little rrrrsol brags about riches gained thru theft, dispossession and the subjugation of others. Such are those that Zionism attracts

Catalan: “Also, if they are so generous, perhaps they can agree to give up the Jordan valley and the four major settlements.”

I don’t think that Palestinians are generous at all. At least not as generous as Israelis. Therefore they should be as generous and modest as Israelis and allow the latter to have a territory the size of Gaza, the Westbank minus the Jordan valley and the four major settlements. I’m sure that you are not a greedy, hipocrit pro-Palestinian shmock and agree.

“I don’t think that Palestinians are generous at all. – ” Talkback
I think we have a misunderstanding. I was just responding to talknic (one of your guys) who said that the Palestinians are “generous”, have “compassion” and “turn the other cheek” (I love it that Gazans, who don’t have electricity most of the day would have such good feelings towards the wealthy Israelis!). I love having an enemy like that. I can’t stop laughing about it – turns out that the tough guys from Hamas are a bunch of Catholic school girls, and that’s according to your own spokesperson, Talknic. Any disagreement you have with this point of view, you’ve got to take it up with him, not me. Also, I am actually very greedy, that’s how I became a millionaire…I am also probably very hypocritical too, I am sure my Gap clothes are made in Bangladesh in pretty bad conditions. C’est la vie.

Here you go:
“Turning the other cheek shows folk who the aggressor really is. “-
“It shows who is actually generous, a trait that’s lacking in the so called Jewish state – ”
“It also shows compassion for Jewish folk”
These are all direct quotes from your comment above. Nothing more needs to be said – I guess the Palestinians are giving what is rightfully theirs because they are just compassionate by nature. Mooser, do you agree with this assessment of the Palestinians?

Wonder what caused the ZioTroll’s melt down into into a venom spitting admission that they’re thoroughly despicable?

The thought of “compassion” or the realization that the Palestinian offer to cede a large part of their territory to Israel for peace is quite “generous” compared to the Israeli offer of no thing towards peace, ever!

You write that “the demand to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State is central to Israel’s demand for legitimacy as an Apartheid state.” would you be intellectually honest and extend the same logic to all Arab and many Muslim states that for example have “Islamic Republic” in their name?

“You write that “the demand to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State is central to Israel’s demand for legitimacy as an Apartheid state.” would you be intellectually honest and extend the same logic to all Arab and many Muslim states that for example have “Islamic Republic” in their name?”

asherpat: “You write that “the demand to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State is central to Israel’s demand for legitimacy as an Apartheid state.” would you be intellectually honest and extend the same logic to all Arab and many Muslim states that for example have “Islamic Republic” in their name?”

The problem is not the name, but the institutionalized discrimination.of natives.

Support Mondoweiss’s independent journalism today

Mondoweiss brings you the news that no one else will. Your tax-deductible donation enables us to deliver information, analysis and voices stifled elsewhere. Please give now to maintain and grow this unique resource.